> I've run a comparison between OLPC's old OFW code (which mounts the > device-tree at /ofw, and makes use of the sparc code) versus the code > which I'm planning to send upstream (which mounts the device-tree > at /proc/device-tree, and makes use of PROC_DEVTREE). The results are > here:
[unit addresses are missing] > Any insight into the reasoning for this mangling? It sounds to me like you're not putting the (textual representation of the) unit address in the device_node->full_name field. How do you fill that field? Segher _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
